DOCSLIB.ORG

Studzr 2/2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Studzr 2/2006 _St_u_dz_·R________________________________________________ ｾＲｾＱＭｾ＿ＰｾＰＶ＠ 285 Dr. Mattbias S. Fifka::· Party and Ioterest Group Involvement in U.S. Judicial Elections Abstract In 2004, a race for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court cost $ 9.3 million, which exceeded the cxpenditurcs made in 18 U.S. Senate races in the same year. Overall, candidates for state Supreme Courts spent $47 million on their campaigns in 2004, and parties and interest groups invested another $ 12 million to influence the electoral outcome. In the following paper it is argued that judicial elections in thc United Statcs havc bccomc incrcasing- ly similar to political elections and that money is a crucial determinant for winning a judicial election. It is also argued that the increasing dependence of judges on campaign contributions severely endangers judicial impartia- lity. When making decisions on the bench judges now more than ever not \ only have to take into consideration the facts presented, but also the will of their supporters. ::- Dr. Matthias S. Fzfka is assistant professor for American and Interna- tional Politics at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürn- berg. He has published numerous articles and books on interest groups and the political process in the United States. 2/2006 286 ｓｾｴｾｴｴ､ｾｚｾｒｾＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭ I. Introduction Th mere idea of "judicial elections" may sound somewhat odd to the European ear be:,.tUse it is uncommon in the Old World that judges are elcctcd dircctly by the citi- . ns. Even in Great Britain, whose common-law systemwas one of the foundations ｺｾ＠ American legal system was built upon, judges are appointed by authorities, in ｾｮｾｳｴ＠ cascs the Queen hcrsclf. 1 In the United States, thc Prcsidcnt also has thc author- ity to appoint Judgcs with the consent of the Senate. Howcver, this nomination and confirmation process only applics to judges for federal courts. Aside from the federal court system, each individual state has its own court systcm and the right to select the judges for its courts in whatever manner it deems proper. Most of the states have a three-levcl court system. On the lowcst Ievel, so-callcd "cir- cuit" or "district courts" can bc founcl, followed by "Courts of Appeals" and the statc Suprcme Court as highest court.2 As judicial sclection mcthod, 38 out of 50 states apply some form of clection. Eight states3 hold partisan elections, in which candidatcs are nominared by the partics ancl run undcr their banner. In fiftecn states,4 Judges arc elected in nonpartisan contests, where partics are - at least officially - not involved in the nomination process. Finally, ninetecn states5 hold so-called "reten- tion elections" in which it is decided whether a judge retains his office or not. That means that the office-holder- rcferred to as "incumbent" - solcly faces an up-or- down vote with no opponent. Retention elections are held for candidates who want to serve subsequent terms, usually pcriods of four to fivc ycars, aftcr thcy have first comc into office through partisan clcctions or appointment. Overall, eighty-six per- cent of Amcrica's juclges must stand for election.6 The election of judges can be regarclcd ambiguously bccause an election usually is precccled by an clection campaign that costs moncy. Potential candidatcs might not have the nccessary financial means to finance a campaign and, thus, turn to support- ers who can proviele the needed monetary assistance. Supportcrs can now appcar in Fora full dcscription of thc judicial appointmcnt process in Great Britain sec Dcpartmcnt for Constinnional Affairs. Appointmcnts, http:/ /www.dca.gov.uk/appointmcnts.htm [Dcccmber 2, 2005]. 2 Some statcs (e. g. New Hampshire or Montana) only havc a two-lcvel-system, while other states evcn luve four ( e. g. Pennsylvania or Mississippi) or five different court Ievels ( c. g. Ten- nessec or Kentucky). Detailed information on the court-systcm of the individual states is pro- vided by the American Judicature Society, Judicial Sclcction Methods, http://www.ajs.org/se- lection/sel_state-select-map.asp [Dccember 2, 2005]. 3 Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia. 4 Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Minncsota, Mississippi, Montana, Ncvada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin. 5 Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, lowa, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Ncbraska, Ncw Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming. 6 Deborah Goldberg!Samantha Sanchez, Thc New Politics of Judicial Elections 2002, 3, http:// www.justiccatstakc.org/files/NcwPoliticsReport2002.pdf [Decembcr 8, 2005]. - Fifka Party and Interest Group Involvement in U.S. Judicial Elcctions 287 the forms of wealthy individuals, intercst groups, or- espccially in states which hold partisan elections - political parties. If a group or party was successful in helping a candidatc into office, the respective candidatc might certainly feel obliged to his sup- poncrs and make decisions in thcir favor. Looking at it from the group's or party's viewpoint, the judge will evcn be cxpccted to make decisions beneficial for his prior supporters because they cxpect a "return on investment". Thercfore, state judicial clections seem to endanger thc "independencc of thc judgcs" which Alexcmder Rarn- ilton had already advocated in thc Federalist Papers in 1788 in order "to guard the Constitution and rhc rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing mcn, or the influence of partict!lar conjuncturcs, somctimes dis- 7 seminate among thc people themselves ... " • Tbc purpose of this papcr is to examine how and to what extent panies and intcrest groups are involved in statc judicial elections in thc United Statcs. Following abrief ovcrview of the historical development of party and interest group cngagement in ju- dicial elections, thcir motivation for influencing judicial elcctions will be discussed. Afterwards, recent contribution trends, which could be observed in the 2002 and 2004 state Supreme Court elections, will bc analyzcd in depth. In a first stcp, the amount and structure of contributions to judicial candidates are examined. In a sec- end stcp, it is analyzed how thcsc campaign donations are used. Here, special atten- tion is placed on expenditures for tclevision advertisemcnts, which havc incrcased substantially ovcr the last ycars in judicial campaigns. In a third stcp, it is examined to what degree campaign contributions in generaland tclevision advcniscmcnts in spc- cific are crucial for the outcome of the election and if candidates who spent !arge amounts on their campaigns emergc victorious morc frequcntly than candidatcs who only had smaller funds availablc. Bascd upon this analysis, an answer to the qucstion, whether the "indepcndence of the judges" is imperilcd in thc individual statcs, will be offcrcd. Finally, an outlook on the future developmcnt of judicial clccrions and po- tential rcforms to safcguard judicial independence arc discusscd. II. The Historical Development of Party and Interest Group lnvolvement in State Judicial Elections State judicial clections have not attracted the attention of either the public or of inter- est groups and parties for a lang time, while, throughout the 20'h century, nomina- tions of judges for federal couns, in particular for the U.S. Supreme Court, usually have received substantial press coveragc and likewisc generared attempts to influencc the presidential nomination and scnatorial confirmation process. Already in 1930, Ia- bor unians and the liberal press succcssfully put fierce pressure upon the Senate to reject Herbert Hoover's conservative nominee to the Suprcme Court,]ohn]. Parker. 7 Alexarzder Hamilton/john ]ayl]ames Madison, Thc Federalist Papers, 1961, 469. 2/2006 288 StudZR !'beral appointees by Lyndon B.]ohnson - Abe Fortasg and Homer I 1968 !1 ' tWO l d a similar destmy,, w h en t h c 5 enate d eme' d t h etr, nommanon' ' after Th orn b erry - f a Ce ' 9 having been lobbied by conservative interest groups. Probably the most controver- . 1 · t' to thc US Suprcme Court was the one of Robert Bork, nominated by sta nomma 1011 Ronald Reagan in 1987. ａｾ｣ｯｲｾｩｮｧ＠ to ｄ･＿ｲ･ｾｯｲｩｯ＠ and ｒｾｾｯｴｴｩＬ＠ at least 147. ｩｾＱｴ･ｲ･ｳｴ＠ groups were actively lobbymg m the ｮｯｭＱｾｾｴＱｯｮ＠ ｾｲｯ｣･ｳｳ［＠ 8.6 of ｴｨ･ｾ＠ ｴ･ｳｮｦｬｾ､＠ be- fore Congress, and so did 46 law profcssors. Bork s nommauon was fmally rcJected with a 42 to 58 vote in the Senate. In cantrast to the fcderal appointment proccss, statc judicial clcctions were "political backwaters" 12 which did not generate !arger public attention until the 1980s. The candidates spoke to a few groups willing to hcar them and the speechcs given dealt with possible improvements of the judiciary and had no political or ideological con- tent. Consequently, open-seat races, which are characterized by the absence of an in- cumbent seeking reelection, were usually won by thc candidatc who had the most at- tractive name, a good ballot placement or had managed to win the endorsemcnt of a newspapcr or a lawyer's association. For an incumbent secking reelection or facing a retention election, victory was almost guarantced, if hc had avoided scandals or at- tacks for highly controvcrsial decisions. 13 The character of state judicial elections as "political backwaters" changed with the beginning of the 1980s and more and more clections becamc battlegrounds with high financial involvement. This development did not occur simultancously throughout the US, but first took hold in states where the candidates are nominared by parties, especially in Texas, Alabama, Illinois and Pcnnsylvania. In 1980, Texas was thc first state where campaign spcnding on judicial races for the state Suprcme Court fell in the million-dollar rangc. However, at this point of time the races were mostly funded by wealthy candidates themselves. Nevcrtheless, only four years latcr, thc first cam- paign which was not self-funded and cost more than one million dollars took placc, when a candidate for the position of chief justice raised about $ 1.4 million.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • September 2009 • Vol
    43085-1 AlaBar:Layout 1 9/21/09 2:16 PM Page 313 SEPTEMBER 2009 • VOL. 70, NO. 5 2009-10 ASBASB PresidentPresident ThomasThomas J.J. MethvinMethvin andand FamilyFamily CelebrateCelebrate ProPro BonoBono WeekWeek OctoberOctober 25-31,25-31, 20092009 43085-1 AlaBar:Layout 1 9/21/09 2:16 PM Page 314 43085-1 AlaBar:Layout 1 9/22/09 2:51 PM Page 315 43085-1 AlaBar:Layout 1 9/21/09 2:16 PM Page 316 43085-1 AlaBar:Layout 1 9/21/09 2:16 PM Page 317 On the SEPTEMBER 2009 • VOL. 70, NO. 5 Cover In This Issue ASB President Thomas J. Methvin and family—Pictured are Amy and Tom Methvin, center, and their two sons, 334 ASB Spring 2009 Admittees Rucker, left, and Slade, right. Tom and Amy met when he was in law ASB LEADERSHIP FORUM: school at Cumberland and have been 338 Update and General Selection Criteria married for over 18 years. Their children By Sam David Knight attend St. James School in Montgomery, 340 where Rucker is in the 11th grade and on Class 5 Graduates the basketball team, and 8th-grader Slade 341 A Perspective on the ASB’s 2009 Leadership Forum–Class 5 is on the football and basketball teams. By Lisa Darnley Cooper –Photo by Kenneth Boone Photography 344 2009 ASB Annual Meeting Awards and Highlights 350 Celebrate Alabama’s Pro Bono Week Departments By Phil D. Mitchell 319 President’s Page Access to Justice– 352 Alabama Law Foundation Announces Now More than Ever Kids’ Chance Scholarship Recipients 321 Executive 353 State Bar LRS Offers Discounts to Military Personnel Director’s Report Rendering Service to Those 354 Outside the Courtroom and Inside the Classroom: from Another Continent Career Attorney Discovers Joy of Teaching 325 Memorials By Kimberly L.
    [Show full text]
  • Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice of Texas PRESIDENT-ELECT
    Last Revised June 2021 PRESIDENT: Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice of Texas PRESIDENT-ELECT: Honorable Paul A. Suttell Chief Justice of Rhode Island ALABAMA ARKANSAS Honorable Tom Parker Honorable John Dan Kemp Chief Justice Chief Justice Alabama Supreme Court Supreme Court of Arkansas 300 Dexter Avenue Justice Building Montgomery, AL 36104-3741 625 Marshall St. (334) 229-0600 FAX (334) 229-0535 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-6873 FAX (501) 683-4006 ALASKA CALIFORNIA Honorable Joel H. Bolger Chief Justice Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice 303 K Street, 5th Floor Supreme Court of California Anchorage, AK 99501 350 McAllister Street (907) 264-0633 FAX (907) 264-0632 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 865-7060 FAX (415) 865-7181 AMERICAN SAMOA COLORADO Honorable F. Michael Kruse Chief Justice Honorable Brian D. Boatright The High Court of American Samoa Chief Justice Courthouse, P.O. Box 309 Colorado Supreme Court Pago Pago, AS 96799 2 East 14th Avenue 011 (684) 633-1410 FAX 011 (684) 633-1318 Denver, CO 80203-2116 (720) 625-5410 FAX (720) 271-6124 ARIZONA CONNECTICUT Honorable Robert M. Brutinel Chief Justice Honorable Richard A. Robinson Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice 1501 W. Washington Street, Suite 433 State of Connecticut Supreme Court Phoenix, AZ 85007-3222 231 Capitol Avenue (602) 452-3531 FAX (602) 452-3917 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 757-2113 FAX (860) 757-2214 1 Last Revised June 2021 DELAWARE HAWAII Honorable Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Honorable Mark E. Recktenwald Chief Justice Chief Justice Supreme Court of Delaware Supreme Court of Hawaii The Renaissance Centre 417 South King Street 405 N.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 State Supreme Court Elections
    2018 State Supreme Court Elections For real-time tracking of TV spending in this year’s state supreme court races, see the Brennan Center’s Buying Time. For data from candidate state campaign finance filings, see the National Institute on Money in Politics. Date of # of # of Date of General Type of Seats Contested # Of Names of Primary Election Names of General Election State Primary Election Election Available Seats Candidates Candidates Candidates Chief Justice Position: Chief Justice Position: Bob Vance Jr., Democrat Tom Parker, Republican Lyn Stewart, Republican* Bob Vance Jr., Democrat Tom Parker, Republican Place 1: Place 1: Sarah Hicks Stewart, Debra Jones, Republican Republican Brad Mendheim, Republican* Place 2: Sarah Hicks Stewart, Tommy Bryan, Republican* Republican Place 3: Place 4: Will Sellers, Republican* Donna Wesson Smalley, Place 4: Democrat Donna Wesson Smalley, John Bahakel, Republican Democrat Alabama 6/5/18 11/6/18 Partisan 5 3 11 Jay Mitchell, Republican Jay Mitchell, Republican General: David Sterling (advanced to 5/22/18 runoff) Kenneth Hixson Runoff: Courtney Goodson* Arkansas N/A 11/6/18 Nonpartisan 1 1 3 N/A (advanced to runoff) Harold D. Melton* John Ellington Michael P. Boggs* Nels Peterson* Georgia N/A 5/22/18 Nonpartisan 5 0 5 N/A Britt Cagle Grant* *—Incumbent Gray—Uncontested general election for all seats Green —Election has passed Bold—Winner Date of # of # of Date of General Type of Seats Contested # Of Names of Primary Election Names of General Election State Primary Election Election Available Seats Candidates Candidates Candidates Idaho 5/15/18 N/A Nonpartisan 1 0 1 G.
    [Show full text]
  • August 6, 2020 Honorable Nathan L. Hecht President, Conference Of
    August 6, 2020 Honorable Nathan L. Hecht President, Conference of Chief Justices c/o Association and Conference Services 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 RE: Bar Examinations and Lawyer Licensing During the COVID-19 Pandemic Dear Chief Justice Hecht: On behalf of the American Bar Association (ABA), the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal professionals in the world, I write to urge the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) to prioritize the development of a national strategy for bar examinations and lawyer licensing for the thousands of men and women graduating law school during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a temporary change and only as necessary to address the public health and safety issues presented during this crisis without closing the doors to our shared profession. In particular, we recommend that this national strategy urge each jurisdiction to cancel in-person bar examinations during the pandemic unless they can be administered in a safe manner; establish temporary measures to expeditiously license recent law school graduates and other bar applicants; and enact certain practices with respect to the administration of remote bar examinations. We appreciate that some jurisdictions may have already taken some action, such as modifying the bar examination dates or setting or temporarily modifying their admission or practice rules. But the failure of all jurisdictions to take appropriate action presents a crisis for the future of the legal profession that will only cascade into future years. Earlier this week, the ABA House of Delegates discussed this important subject and heard from many different stakeholders within the legal profession, including concerns from the National Conference of Bar Examiners.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Judicial Elections 2015 16
    THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 201516 Who Pays for Judicial Races? By Alicia Bannon, Cathleen Lisk, and Peter Hardin With Douglas Keith, Laila Robbins, Eric Velasco, Denise Roth Barber, and Linda Casey Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law National Institute on Money and State Politics CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter One: Supreme Court Election Spending Reaches New Heights 4 Spending Overview: 2015-16 Supreme Court Election Cycle 4 Notable Trends: Secret Money and Record Outside Spending 7 Profiled Races: What Factors Contribute to High-Cost Elections? 12 The Bigger Picture: Big Money Races Leave A Mark On A Majority of Elected Courts 15 State Courts as Political Targets 19 Chapter Two: A Closer Look at Interest Groups 21 Overview 21 The Transparency Problem 22 Wisconsin’s Weak Recusal Standards Undermine Fair Courts 26 The Major Players 27 A Parallel Problem: Dark Money and Judicial Nominations 30 Chapter 3: Television Ads and the Politicization of Supreme Court Races 32 Overview 32 A More Pervasive Negative Tone 33 Ad Themes 36 Ad Spotlight 38 Conclusion 40 Appendix 42 IV CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Introduction Chapter One Estimated Spending on State Supreme Court Races, 2015-16 5 Number of Judges Elected in $1 Million-Plus Elections by Cycle 6 State Supreme Court Election Spending by Cycle (2016 Dollars) 8 Outside Spending by Interest Groups (2016 Dollars) 9 Spending Breakdown for 2015-16 Supreme Court Races 9 Contributions to Candidates by Sector, 2015-16 11 Top 10 Candidate Fundraisers, 2015-16 11 The Rise of Million Dollar Courts 16 Million Dollar Courts in 2016 17 Chapter Two Top 10 Outside Spenders and Secret Money, 2015-16 23 Outside Group Spending: Dark, Gray, and Transparent Money, 2015-16 24 States with Unreported Outside Spending, 2015-16 25 Chapter 3 Total TV Spending, 2015-16 33 Number of Television Ad Spots by Cycle 34 Total TV Spending by Cycle (2016 Dollars) 34 Ad Tone Analysis: Groups vs.
    [Show full text]
  • 1988 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1988 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics n General in Appeals in Arguments in Attorneys in Briefs iv Certiorari iv Costs iv Judgments and Opinions v Miscellaneous v Original Cases v Records vi Rehearings vi Rules vi Stays vii Conclusion vn (i) II STATISTICS AS OF JULY 3, 1989 In Forma Paid Original Pauperis Cases Total Cases 14 2,587 3,056 5,657 Cases disposed of 2 2,203 2,625 4.830 Remaining on docket 12 384 431 827 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases 2,141 In forma pauperis cases 2,632 Original cases 2 Total 4,775 Cases remaining from last term 882 Total cases on docket 5,657 Cases disposed of 4,830 Number of remaining on docket 827 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases 106 In in forma pauperis cases 16 Appeals granted: In paid cases 23 In in fonna pauperis cases 2 Total cases granted plenary review 147 Cases argued during term 170 Number disposed of by full opinions 156 Number disposed of by per curiam opinions 12 Number set for reargument next term 2 Cases available for argument at beginning of term 105 Disposed of summarily after review was granted 4 Original cases set for argument 0 Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument 108 Total cases available for argument at start of next term 81 Number of written opinions of the Court 133 12 Opinions per curiam in argued cases , Number of lawyers admitted to practice as of October 1, 1989: On written motion 3,502 On oral motion 981 Total 4,483 Ill GENERAL: Page 1987 Term closed and 1988 Term convened October 3, 1988; adjourned October 2, 1989 1 Bryson, William C, named Acting Solicitor General, Jan- uary 21, 1989; remarks by the Chief Justice 692 Dowling, Shelley L., appointed Librarian to succeed Ste- phen G.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 State Supreme Courtelections
    1 2016 State Supreme Court Elections # of Seats Date of Date of Available # of Primary General Type of for Contested # of Names of Primary Election Names of General Election State Election Election Election Election Seats Candidates Candidates Candidates Contested Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections Position 1: Michael F. "Mike" Bolin, Republican* Position 2: Position 3: Kelli Wise, Republican* Donna J. Beaulieu, Republican Position 3: AL Mar. 1, 2016 Nov. 8, 2016 Partisan 3 0 4 Tom Parker, Republican* Tom Parker, Republican* Chief Justice Seat: Courtney Goodson* Dan Kemp Position 5: No Primary Clark W. Mason AR Election Mar. 1, 2016 Nonpartisan 2 2 4 Not Applicable Shawn. A. Womack No General GA May 24, 2016 Election Nonpartisan 1 0 1 David Nahmias* Not Applicable Seat 1: Seat 1: Roger S. Burdick* Roger S. Burdick* Seat 2: Seat 2: Robyn Brody Robyn Brody Sergio A. Gutierrez Curt McKenzie Curt McKenzie ID May 17, 2016 Nov. 8, 2016 Nonpartisan 2 1 5 Clive J. Strong No Primary Larry VanMeter KY Election Nov. 8, 2016 Nonpartisan 1 1 2 Not Applicable Glenn Acree *—Incumbent Gray—Uncontested general election for all seats Green —Election has passed Bold—Winner 2 # of Seats Date of Date of Available # of Primary General Type of for Contested # of Names of Primary Election Names of General Election State Election Election Election Election Seats Candidates Candidates Candidates 3rd District Justice Marilyn Castle, Republican James “Jimmy” Genovese, Republican No General 4th District Judge LA Nov. 8, 2016 Election Partisan 2 1 3 Marcus Clark, Republican* Not Applicable Nonpartisan (candidates are Seat 1: nominated David Viviano, Republican* through a Doug Dern, Natural Law partisan Party process and Frank Szymanski, Democrat elected in a Seat 2: nonpartisan Joan Larsen, Republican* No Primary general Kerry Morgan, Liberal MI Election Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards
    FAIR COURTS: SETTING RECUSAL STANDARDS James Sample, David Pozen and Michael Young Foreword by the Honorable Thomas R. Phillips, Retired Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law executive summary This paper takes its cue from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence in the 2002 case of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. In White (discussed in greater detail in the body of the paper), Justice Kennedy wrote that in response to dynamics perceived to threaten the impartiality of the courts, states “may adopt recusal standards more rigorous than due process requires, and censure judges who violate these standards.” The need for states to heed Justice Kennedy’s advice was critical in 2002 – and has only become more critical in the years since. The paper describes the increasing threats to the impartiality of America’s state courts and argues that they have been spurred by two trends: the growing influence of money in judicial elections and the dismantling of codes of judicial ethics that once helped to pre- serve the distinctive character of the judiciary, even during the course of campaigns for the bench. While acknowledging that more sweeping – and controversial – measures are ulti- mately needed to fully address the emerging threats to impartial courts, this paper focuses on how judges, courts, legislators, and litigants can maximize the due process protection that stronger recusal rules potentially afford. Technically, there is a difference between disqualification and recusal – disqualification is mandatory, recusal is voluntary – but the difference is often blurred because in the many jurisdictions in which judges adjudicate challenges to their own qualification to sit, disqualification functions essentially as recusal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alabama Supreme Court and Life Issues
    RULE OF LAW, NOT THE RULE OF MEN: LIFE ISSUES AND THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT Marc James Ayers1 In a real sense, any analysis of the Alabama Supreme Court’s philosophy and jurisprudence with respect to life issues is necessarily going to end up being an examination of the Court’s general judicial philosophy with respect to all issues. This is because the Court has not ventured into these areas under the Alabama Constitution in the same way the United States Supreme Court (USSC) has under the federal Constitution, and has, therefore, not expanded any rights beyond what federal law dictates. Even with the issue that many have considered today’s primary life issue – abortion – the Court simply has not issued many decisions on the issue, beyond those concerning the application of statutory bypass provisions, involving the ability of a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent. The Court has not issued any decisions on and, therefore, has not had the occasion to “find” fundamental rights to abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning, embryo research, and other life issues under the Alabama Constitution. However, given the Court’s conservative approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation, it is highly unlikely this Court would be willing to find such rights where the people of the State of Alabama have not expressly placed them in their governing documents. I. LIFE ISSUES Abortion As indicated above, virtually all of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion relate to Alabama’s statutory bypass procedure. Alabama law generally requires parental consent before a minor can have an abortion.2 Interestingly, the Alabama Legislature provided 1 Marc James Ayers practices appellate law in Birmingham, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Crusading Against the Courts
    Crusading Against the Courts The New Mission to Weaken the Role of the Courts in Protecting Our Religious Liberties Written by Bert Brandenburg and Amy Kay Crusading Against the Courts The New Mission to Weaken the Role of the Courts in Protecting Our Religious Liberties Justice at Stake is a nonpartisan national campaign of more than 45 partners working to keep our courts fair, impartial and independent. Justice at Stake Campaign partners educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom—so judges can do their job protecting our Constitution, our rights and the rule of law. The positions and policies of Justice at Stake partners are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other campaign partners. The Campaign’s Bola Omisore provided research support for this report. Publication of this report was supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute. Justice at Stake’s work is also supported by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Joyce Foundation, and the Moriah Fund. Written by Bert Brandenburg and Amy Kay Crusading Against the Courts The New Mission to Weaken the Role of the Courts in Protecting Our Religious Liberties I. Introduction For more than two centuries, America has shown the world how a constitutional democracy can support faith and freedom. Helping both to thrive will never be simple. Religion by its nature often deals in profound faith and personal absolutes. Political society seeks to accommodate difference and diversity. A democracy could attempt to echo the religious beliefs of the majority, but America’s founders chose a different course.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards
    FAIR COURTS: SETTING RECUSAL STANDARDS James Sample, David Pozen and Michael Young Foreword by the Honorable Thomas R. Phillips, Retired Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and jus- tice. Our work ranges from voting rights to redistricting reform, from access to the courts to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communication to win meaningful, mea- surable change in the public sector. ABOUT THE BRENNAN Center’S FaIR COURTS PROJECT The Brennan Center’s Fair Courts Project works to preserve fair and impartial courts and their role as the ultimate guarantor of equal justice in our constitutional democracy. Our research, public education, and advocacy focus on improving selection systems (including elections), increasing diversity on the bench, promoting measures of accountability that are appropriate for judges, and keeping courts in balance with other governmental branches. © 2008. This paper is covered by the Creative Commons “Attribution-No Derivs-NonCommercial” license (see http://creativecommons.org). It may be reproduced in its entirety as long as the Brennan Center is credited, a link to the Center’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Center’s permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Party Candidates
    ALABAMA REPUBLICAN PARTY 3505 Lorna Road * Birmingham, AL 35216 * Phone: 205-212-5900 * Fax: 205-2 12-5910 ~'\1 1819.20') ~~ - ...,,-2 "' \-'>~ Tuesday, November 17, 2015 /:?~ T ~ ~ RtCf:/Vto 'i, The Honorable John Merrill ; Nov 2015 ~ T"" Secretary & Office of the Secretary of State ~ of State fl.? State Capitol f$J tiJv ~,9 1,<o Suite E-208 $-I> fu<o Montgomery, AL 36130 !' C: l - \£. 0 ~ i.,J} t-q lrlt-. l Ytq/1 S Dear Secretary Merrill: The Alabama Republican Party hereby certifies that the persons whose names appear below have qualified to run in the 2016 Alabama Republican Preference Primary Election to be called to be on Tuesday, March 1, 2016. President of the United States: Jeb Bush Ben Carson Chris Christie Ted Cruz Carly Fiorina Lindsey Graham Mike Huckabee Bobby Jindal John R. Kasich Rand Paul Marco Rubio Rick Santorum Donald J. Trump 1 WWW .ALGOP .ORG Paid for and authorized by The Alabama Republican Party. • Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. United State Senate: Marcus Bowman John Martin Jonathan McConnell Shadrack McGill Richard C. Shelby United States House of Representatives: Bradley Byrne - District 1 Dean Young - District 1 Becky Gerritson - District 2 Martha Roby- District 2 Robert L. "Bob" Rogers - District 2 Larry Di Chiara - District 3 Mike Rogers - District 3 Robert Aderholt - District 4 Phil Norris - District 4 Mo Brooks - District 5 Gary Palmer - District 6 David Van Williams - District 7 Alabama Supreme Court: Michael F. "Mike" Bolin - Place 1 Kelli Wise - Place 2 Donna J. Beaulieu - Place 3 2 Tom Parker - Place 3 Alabama State Board of Education: Adam Bourne - District 1 E.
    [Show full text]